I want to start a new topic around Hans H. Orberg's "Lingua Latina" series. Since the series of readers, pamplets on grammar, exercises, etc. are all in Latin, I found some difficulties with the "implied/contexual" explainations.

I enjoy the methodology Orberg applies greatly. However, I find myself scratching my head and re-reading passages after long breaks before some of the meaning is clear to me.

My questions will follow shortly...

Thanks to all who contribute!

Mark

Last edited by mfranks on Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'm having trouble with the last part of the following passage on page 42:

"Iulius ab oppido ad villam suam it."

Understanding that Julius is traveling from the city to his home, I can't find any reference to the word "it" and it's (no pun intended) driving me crazy... what does "it" mean? At first, I thought the word was a pronoun meaning "his" but after looking in dictionaries and grammars, no luck... "Suam" is the possessive pronoun...

You might find this website useful. You can also download the program from here. It parses words for you and gives their definitions, principal parts, etc. Parsing is good practice for learning, so don't let it do all your parsing

mfranks wrote:One of the frustrations is that there are no comprehensive dictionaries/tools that you can look up a word form if you don't know the stem. This is a problem mostly with irregular verbs.

If you go to the publisher's website, they have vocabulary lists for each book that you can download and print. Since the list itself is relatively short and the verbs are easy to see, you can usually find most of the irregulars pretty quickly (unless the first letter changes, like "ferre, tuli, latum" but I'm pretty sure there's a list of these kind of changes at the end of Part I).

BUT --
One of the nice things about LL is that everything is in Latin, so I wouldn't necessarily suggest that you actually use these vocab lists unless you're really ready to pull your hair out. Trying to figure it out in context with Latin only is much more useful. I found that in Part II, though, the contextual clues were much less, the introduction rate of new words very high, and I had no choice but to resort to this list. Fortunately I didn't know about it when I read the first book.

Master's bad servants are beaten with the staff/club; therefore, the master's bad servants are afraid of him.

Now, not sure whether this is quite correct or not...

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

If I parse this and treat "itaque servi maili dominum" and "baculum eius timent" separately - the thought falls apart for me... if I conbine them and rearrage the words, I can make the translation fit for me... but I'm not sure this is correct translation.

I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

Yes. Also, note that "dominus" is nominative and "verberat" is an active verb, so your translation of the first part isn't completely accurate.

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

"dominum et baculum eius" together make up the direct object of "timent."

I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

Any suggestions?

I'd say so, and the best thing, I think, is to try to "think in" Latin as you read it. I don't know how Lingua Latina works exactly, but speaking from experience, I'd suggest making sure you know the various inflections pretty well, so you can recognize cases, etc. when you come across them.

mfranks wrote:I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

You do need to shuffle words around to fit English syntax, but you have to do so with reason. For example, if you move a word to the beginning of the English sentence, you may have just changed its role to subject. This is obviously unacceptable if the given word was not nominative in the Latin sentence.

When translating a sentence into English, you generally must put the subject (= nom.) before the verb and the direct object (= acc.) after the verb, if the sentence has a direct object. This will give you the basic skeleton of a sentence, to which other things like adverbs, prepositonal phrases, conjunctions, etc. can be added.

So take your nominative subject, dominus; take your accusative direct object, servos malos; and take your verb verberat. Translate them in the order S (the lord) - V (beats) - DO (the bad servants), then add the other stuff (with a staff).

Now try that with the second clause, the part after the semicolon.

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

This is correct.

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

because it is "the lord AND (his) staff"

Last edited by benissimus on Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

I can appreciate the difficulties that Mark is having having with the Orberg method. I'll give my expereince with it. I bought both books in the very early summer and worked my way about half way through each. The titles are "Familia Romana" and "Roma Aeterna". I had already had some training, more than some really, so my experience with Familia Romana was probably different than Mark's has been. In other words, for me in was more of a review - especially with the first book. But he is approaching the book, I believe, as a first time learner. That's completely different. I think the Orberg method (an an example of the "direct method") is terrific but I would hesitate recommending it to someone who does not have an actual teacher to clarify difficulties. On the other hand, I wouldn't give up now unless it became absolutely frustrating. In another section of this forum, I mentioned efforts to reform latin instruction. Orberg is one such effort. Correspondence with teachers who use Familia Romana, primarily European. As I recall those teachers try to bring latin into active classroom use. Working without a teacher, I think it would greatly help to try to read everything out loud after you've sure you are understanding what you are reading.

I liked Orberg but didn't finish working through the two books. The reason, I switched to "Latin sans Peine", another "direct method" that comes with tapes to support the readings.

The CD ROM for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana has an audio recording for the first 30 chapters. I've been using it and like it quite a bit.

I do think the grammar explanations in Lingua Latina are brief to say the least. They do need to be supplemented with something else, but if you have some knowledge of Latin, I think Lingua Latina is a great way to review and progress in the language.

Thanks for the info re the audio on the Familia Romana. I was aware of the existence of this item but took a pass on it, figuring I spend too much time in front of a computer as it is. However, I'm very big on the idea of learning via audio and so IF there a way to exatract the audio portions from the CD for eventual use on a .MP3 player, I would change my mind quickly about this and other computer CD programs with audio content. The problem is I'm an idiot when it comes to these things. Any ideas, Boethius or anyone else?

Salve Benissime: It was you, nisi fallor, who suggested Whittiker's "Words" program to our student. I strongly concur. That program is invaluable for word lookup and parsing. It would seem particularly important in a case like this where there is no general glossary of previously introduced words.

Back to you, Boetius. One of the works that first drew me to these studies was "Consolatio Philosophiae". I take it you are fan?

Now to Mark: Nobis perseverantia difficilia vincenda sunt; we must overcome difficulties by perseverance. I am not suggesting that you are not a hard worker or anything - I'm sure that you are are or you would not be taking latin. My only thought is this: latin can be darn tough and sometimes I myself have wanted to give up. No doubt you have other stuff going on your life - that's good. But whatever you do, I urge you to stay with this project for the long haul - even if sometimes it seems as if we have to learn each rule and word sescenties (six hundred times). Once again, good luck.

I have the audio and find it invaluable for understanding the pronounciation and cadence of the language.

However, I'm very big on the idea of learning via audio and so IF there a way to exatract the audio portions from the CD for eventual use on a .MP3 player, I would change my mind quickly about this and other computer CD programs with audio content.

Actually, I just copied the files from the CD to my computer then transferred them to my memory card and listen to the audio files using my PocketPC Phone... I had to rename the files so they are arranged in the proper order:

Nobis perseverantia difficilia vincenda sunt; we must overcome difficulties by perseverance. I am not suggesting that you are not a hard worker or anything - I'm sure that you are are or you would not be taking latin. My only thought is this: latin can be darn tough and sometimes I myself have wanted to give up. No doubt you have other stuff going on your life - that's good. But whatever you do, I urge you to stay with this project for the long haul - even if sometimes it seems as if we have to learn each rule and word sescenties (six hundred times). Once again, good luck.

I won't give up... I was only seeking some help from good people like yourself... It's been awesome seeing all these responses and I appreciate all the commentary and advice - it's been taken to heart and some of it applied already!

I like the fact that Latin is tough. Given this fact, makes Latin all the more appealing to me! Someone once said, "It wouldn't be worth doing if it wasn't difficult" or something like that...

When I was a young boy, long ago... I was told many times by many people that I was "dumb" and "stupid"... What I came to realize over time was that I wasn't "dumb", "stupid", or incapable for that matter - it was that I was lazy and gave up too easily. "Why bother? I can't understand this stuff, it's too hard." Once I realized that if I worked hard and sought help when necessary, I would eventially overcome the difficulties. I've been a hard worker (at things I care about) ever since and it has served me well!

Magno gaudio epistiolas quas mihi misisti legi.
I read the letters you sent to me with joy.

Illud de plicas audibiles magno auxilio mihi erit.
That [part] concerning the audible files will be a great help to me.

Immo nunc rem ipse probare volo.
Indeed I want to try it myself now.

Sine ullo dubio bonam viam sequeris.
Without any doubt you are on the right path.

Nam methoda Orbergiano quo uteris optima est.
For the Orberg method you are using is terrific. (method I believe is feminine and in case you haven't gotten that far the verb utor takes an ablative object).

Te magno ingenio studioque iuvenem es, ut puto.
As I see it, you are a youth of great character and energy (zeal).

Many women, who walk on the street stop in front of Albini's [jewelry] store, for jewelry please women. Those [women] who have lots of money buy lots of jewelry. Those who don't [have money] or little money stop and look [quite a bit] at the jewelry, [but] don't buy. Also, lots of men, buy [jewelry] at this jewelry store. Those that have lots of money buy jewelry and give them to women; others, on the contrary stay away [or refrain altogether].

Also, I like the "go away" better than "stay away" translation for abeunt. We already have many men coming (adeunt). Of these, some are buying, others are going away. [It's a nice pairing of adeunt and abeunt.] In any case, you understood the meaning.

I'm back with another couple of questions after taking a little hiatus from Lingua Latina. I haven't stopped my study of Latin - au contraire. I decided to supplement Lingua Latina with The Cambridge Latin Course. I cruised through Unit 1 and I got through half of Unit 2 before picking up at Capitulum Vndecimum again. I actually re-read all the chapters in sequence in two sittings in a day with little struggle until now.

The very first paragraph of the chapter is vexing! Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".

As I am writing this, I might be solving my own conundrum - perhaps I should translate into the following:

Italy is sandwiched between two seas... But it still bugs me... How else should I look at the verb "interest"? inter-esse - to be between? I would love to know how others "think" about these things...

Another problem I'm having with Latin is with the passive voice.

When a Latin sentance is contructed using the preposition ab/a I have no problem with the passive such as in the following sentence:

Saccus portantur a servo.

The Sack is being carried by the servant.

This is straight forward and simple enough. But in a sentance constucted in the following way without ab/a (by) I don't translate it as passive in my mind:

Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.

Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.

How is this passive?

Isn't the following equivalent?

Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.

I've noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children's Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.

So when ever ab/a is missing, I just translate the verb in my mind as if it was active. Is this wrong?

Maybe I need an English Lesson on Passive and Active Voice. I must admit English grammer was never a strong suit of mine. But Latin is certainly helping me to understand my own [native] language much better. I've been studying Latin since last May and every single day I am awed by how much of my native tongue was derived from Latin - it's awesome!

mfranks wrote:Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".

It's very common in Latin to use both a compound verb and a preposition (particularly the same preposition already in the compound) where in English we would expect either a compound verb or a verb followed by a preposition, but not both. Part of this is because English likes to form complex verbs by adding a preposition after the basic verb, instead of using a prefix the way Latin does, so that prepositional phrases and verbs mush together.

Thinking of analogous forms, you would have in Latin "expellere virum ex urbe" -- "to expel the man from the city", or "to drive (out) the man out of the city". Even though the verb is compounded, you still have to use a preposition before "city" because it isn't the object of the verb. You could say "pellere virum ex urbe", I suppose, but Latin likes the extra emphasis. It seems unnatural in English, but if you see enough of it in Latin, I think you'll find that the redundancy starts to seem elegant.

Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea. How is this passive?Isn't the following equivalent?Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.

I think this is a case where the English verb (to plunge, immerse) can be used a bit differently than the Latin. I suspect the Latin verb is transitive -- you have to use it with a direct object. So to be active you would expect: naves nautas in mare mergent (the ships plunged the sailors into the sea). In your sentence, the sailors aren't causing the plunging, some unknown force or agent is. So they are "being plunged", passive.

I've noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children's Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.

Not having examples, I don't know exactly what you're seeing, but there are several points worth mentioning:

1) Be careful not to confuse the ablative of agent (which is a person and requires a/ab) with the ablative of instrument or means (which is a thing by which something is brought about and does not use a preposition)
To use the previous example:

2) Passive periphrastics use a different construction (dative of a person) instead of the ablative of agent.
3) There are certain verbs which are deponent -- they have passive forms but active meanings.

mrfranks, I think I see what you were getting at now. I thought you meant the sentences had some kind of noun functioning as an agent but not expressed with the usual construction.

Passive constructions don't have to have an agent stated explicitly. Often, in fact, if you do have to mention an agent specifically, the sentence should be rewritten in the active, as it makes for stronger writing.
For example, something like "Liber a me legebatur" ("the book was read by me") is much more direct if you put it as "Librum legebam" ("I read the book")
But you can also say simply "Liber legebatur" if you wish to emphasize the act of being read rather than the person who did it, or if the agent is undefined. "Liber clarus saepe legebatur" ("the famous book was often read" - i.e., at many times by different people. The "who" isn't important here, in fact, the point is that it isn't someone specific.)

That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.

That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.

Actually, truth be told, I need all the grammatical explaination I can get! I'm rather grammatically challenged - hence my need for so much explaination... Latin is teaching me more about grammer than any English teacher over the years could ever dream possible.

Spiphany has said it all. I just want to expand a wee bit for what itâ€™s worth using some illustrative examples I found in Lingua Latina when I opened my copy purely by chance at page 154 (chapter entitled PARENTES, where the grammatical theme is really Future Tense).

1. As the Spiff points out, the passive is particularly suitable for sentences where the subject is not an issue. As in:

In these cases, we donâ€™t care WHO calls the woman â€˜nutrixâ€™ or WHO calls the baby boys infants. People in general do so. So, no a/ab. Just as â€˜geniuses are born, not bredâ€™ â€“ by whom is not the issue.

However, when the doer of the action IS of interest and is therefore included in the passive sentence, it becomes the â€˜agentâ€™ (BY WHOM something is/was/etc done), as opposed to the â€˜subjectâ€™ (WHO does/did/etc something) in active sentences).

Neither â€˜aâ€™ nor â€˜abâ€™ is in itself â€˜passiveâ€™. They are not part of the (passive) verb at all but just happen to be used in some types of passive 'constructions' (verb + prep + agent). They introduce the agent when necessary. As per the following general rule:

Initio pater eum sustinebit ac manu ducet, mox vero infans solus ambulare incipiet neque a parentibus sustinebitur neque manu ducetur. (In the beginning, the father will support him or lead him by the hand, soon however the child will start to walk on his own and will neither be supported by his parents nor be led by hand).

As a matter of interest, your example from Ferdinandus Taurus also seems to be a deponent verb:

In the Index Verborum at the back of the book â€˜angor, angiâ€™ (=feel distress, worry) is given in the passive form (i.e. just like a deponent). I find only the active form of the verb, ango, angere = choke, strangle, distress, tease, trouble, in my dictionary. So Ferdinandâ€™s mum felt distress, worried (or was distressed, worried, etc).

(...And there, among the nearest houses, they were separated in such a way that the Tiber and the bridge were between them.)

This is an example of this syntactic feature at work in classical Latin. Interesset is singular, by the way, because it's agreeing with the nearest of the two subjects--pons, though Tiberis is also between them.

I've been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of Classical or Medieval? A topic which has been quite amusing. I won't weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the "Classical" pronunciation of Latin words?

I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it's absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.

Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it's really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at "natural" or "colloquial" speed. It's quite encouraging to see progress for a "middle-aged" dog like me...

Finally, back to my main reason for posting... I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter "u" or "V" capitalized.

Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter "u" changed to a "V" when capitalized?

Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) "u" is pronounced like "ooze" or "Zeus" and other times pronounced like "oh" or "most"?

There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter "u" can have:

(1) uh like "duh" or "gutter"
(2) oh like "most" or "toast"
(3) ew like "dew" or "zoo"

The last one can be further divided by adding the french "u" which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French "u" seems to be a more "impassioned", and of "shorter" duration, than the english form.

Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.

If the correct pronounciation of "Quintus" is Quin-tews why isn't there a macron over the "u" - isn't this a long "u"??? Also, why is the word "numerus" pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?

Another example is "reprehendimur". I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, "tuus" correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.

My last example is less specific in terms of specific words... But I have noticed that many words which have the 1st person plural ending:-imus or -amus are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews. [I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]

Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?

I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.

There are other examples as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that "we" can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren't they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books... that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I'm chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.

Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

PS: Is there a nice Latin version of "Warm Regards" that's not just a litteral translation - something a Roman would have had actually said at the end of a letter to convey a "heart-felt" regard or respect for the person or people he was addressing?

Salve, Amice (adressing one person)... but the verb form requires the plural here, wouldn't you agree?

I've been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of Classical or Medieval? A topic which has been quite amusing. I won't weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the "Classical" pronunciation of Latin words?

Mainly: the native languages of those speakers. So someone from England who won't (or can't) adhere to a Classical pronunciation in an accurate manner will sound different than someone from Germany in the same situation, simply because each will use the sounds from his own native language.English speakers are notorious for doing one of the things you describe below: reduction/neutralization of unstressed vowels.

I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it's absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.

Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it's really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at "natural" or "colloquial" speed. It's quite encouraging to see progress for a "middle-aged" dog like me...

Finally, back to my main reason for posting... I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter "u" or "V" capitalized.

Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter "u" changed to a "V" when capitalized?

I'll leave that for Lucus to answer, but it has to do with the way the letters "u/v" looked like in ancient times.

Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) "u" is pronounced like "ooze" or "Zeus" and other times pronounced like "oh" or "most"?

Mmhh.. it should sound like /u/ in Spanish or Italian; that is, somewhat like "oo" in English "ooze". A macron tells you that that vowel is long, and so is pronounced like its short counterpart, but held about twice as long. But the quality of it should be the same.And "oh" as in "most? Goodness.. what are you listening to again?

There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter "u" can have:

(1) uh like "duh" or "gutter"(2) oh like "most" or "toast"(3) ew like "dew" or "zoo"

Excuse me? Like I said, think of it this way: long Latin "u" (marked with macron in your text) is pronounced somewhat like "oo" in English "boo"; short Latin "u" (no macron) is pronounced the same way, but held about half as much as the long one.This concept applies to the other vowels as well.

The last one can be further divided by adding the french "u" which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French "u" seems to be a more "impassioned", and of "shorter" duration, than the english form.

The sound of French "u" is that used for "y" in Latin.

Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.

If the correct pronounciation of "Quintus" is Quin-tews why isn't there a macron over the "u" - isn't this a long "u"???

Don't confuse quality, with quantity. Quantity here refers to the length of vowel: whether it is short or long. Quality refers to how it's pronounced."Quintus" is pronounced something like /kwintoos/.

Another example is "reprehendimur". I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, "tuus" correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.

Roughly /reh-preh-hen-dee-moor/.

Again, don't reduce unstressed vowels to a schwa, pronounce them as full vowels.

My last example is less specific in terms of specific words... But I have noticed that many words which have the 1st person plural ending:-imus or -amus are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews.

[I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]

Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?

Luce, ubi es?

I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.

There are other examples as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that "we" can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren't they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books... that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I'm chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.

Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

And what you describe here regarding pronunciation is something English generally go through. Some don't care and just keep pronouncing it like that, with scwhas, aspirated consonants and retroflex R's (there are plenty of examples online).
If you've ever studied Spanish or Italian, keep those languages in mind.
And if you're still having trouble, I'm sure I or other people on the boards can make a few recordings of the examples for you.

The V/u convention is merely aesthetic rather than historical. Essentially, there exsisted no letter 'v' (as in "very") in Latin, but only letter 'u'. Therefore eliminating even its suggestion is highly recommendable. Moreover, Roman "cursive" handwriting (which is often paired with our lowercase letters) would have this letter not simply in the form of a "V" but more frequently as "U" or "u," with a little tail like ours, since it was easier to flow that way into the next letter.

However, we see in majuscule a universal use of "V" even into mediÃ¦val times, such as in monumental inscriptions. This is a strong, beautiful form. And I for one think it is worth prÃ¦serving. Therefore, I write "Vbi" when it begins a sentence, as well as "Vranus," but "uero" when it's lowercase, et cetera.

Mark, I'm very confused by your problems with pronunciation. I'll be happy to help, by means of Skype; feel free to email me or PM me and we can set a time to talk.

I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we'll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.

Salve Luce amice mi,
You have spent too much time with the "toscanacci", I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola I woulnd't say that Sicilian accent is regarded extremely low-class, it could be also funny or aristocratic, it depends. Personally I like it, probably thanks to Camilleri's Inspector Montalbano (did you try to read it?). I am also curious to know which Italian regional accents you prefer.
Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50'60' weren't much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don't think it's the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.
Regards
Misopogon

I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we'll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.

Salve Luce amice mi,You have spent too much time with the "toscanacci", I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola

Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50'60' weren't much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don't think it's the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.